Saturday, April 1, 2017

AL
is an interdisciplinary field of study that identifies, investigates,
and offers solutions to language-related real life problems. Some of the
academic fields related to appliedlinguistics are
education, linguistics, psychology, anthropology, and sociology in the
very practical context such as speech therapy, speech recognition, ELT and
communications which is the area specifically important for pedagogical
practicum. Other major branches of applied linguistics include
bilingualism and multilingualism, computer-mediated communication (CMC),
conversation analysis, language assessment, literacies, discourse analysis,
language pedagogy, sociolinguistics, second language acquisition, language
planning and policies, pragmatics, forensic linguistics, stylistics and
translation. Of all these TEFL or ELT ,as generally called, are the most
important applications of Linguistics and out of these, I would like
to choose ALM. I will start with the background of ALM and its various
features then will conclude the topic with its strengths and limitations on
practical implications in Pakistani environment.

History of ALM

The Audio-lingual method is the product of three
historical circumstances. For its views on language, audiolingualism drew
on the work of American linguists such as Leonard Bloomfield. The
prime concern of American Linguistics at the early decades of the
20th century had been to document all the indigenous languages spoken in the USA.
However, because of the dearth of trained native teachers who would provide a
theoretical description of the native languages, linguists had to rely on
observation. For the same reason, a strong focus on oral language was
developed. At the same time, behaviourist psychologists such as B.F. Skinner
were forming the belief that all behaviour (including language) was learnt
through repetition and positive or negative reinforcement. The third factor
that enabled the birth of the Audio-lingual method was the outbreak of World
War II, which created the need to post large number of American servicemen all
over the world. It was therefore necessary to provide these soldiers with at
least basic verbal communication skills. Unsurprisingly, the new method relied
on the prevailing scientific methods of the time, observation and repetition,
which were also admirably suited to teaching en masse. Because of the influence
of the military, early versions of the audio-lingualism came to be known as the
“army method.” The study of linguistics itself was to change, and the
area of second language learning became a discipline in its own right.
Cognitive psychologists developed new views on learning in general, arguing
that mimicry and rote learning could not account for the fact that language
learning involved affective and interpersonal factors, which learnerswere
able to produce language forms and patterns that they had never heard before.
The idea that thinking processes themselves led to the discovery of independent
language “rule formation” (rather than “habit formation”) and that affective
factors influenced their application paved the way toward the new methods that
were to follow the Audiolingual Method.

Key Features and Objectives of the
Method

The overall goal of the Audiolingual Method was
to create communicative competence in learners. However, it was thought
that the most effective way to do this was for students to “overlearn” the
language being studied through extensive repetition and a variety of elaborate
drills. The idea was to project the linguistic patterns of the language (based
on the studies of structural linguists) into the minds of
the learners in a way that made responses automatic and “habitual”.
To this end it was held that the language “habits” of the first language would
constantly interfere, and the only way to overcome this problem was to
facilitate the learning of a new set of “habits” appropriate linguistically to
the language being studied. Here is a summary of the key features of the
Audiolingual Method:

New material is presented in
dialog form.

There is dependence on
mimicry, memorization of set phrases, and overlearning.

Structures are sequenced by
means of contrastive analysis and taught one at a time.

Structural patterns are
taught using repetitive drills in a structural framework.

There is little or no
grammatical explanation. Grammar is taught by inductive analogy
rather than deductive explanation.

Vocabulary is strictly
limited and learned in context.

There is much use of tapes,
language labs, and visual aids such as computer and CDs.

Great importance is attached
to pronunciation.

Very little use of the mother
tongue by teachers is permitted.

Successful responses are
immediately reinforced.

There is great effort to
get students to produce error-free utterances.

There is a tendency to
manipulate language and disregard content.

The overall impression of the
approach is habit-formulation.

The Basic Techniques Used in ALM

Larsen-Freeman, in her book Techniques and
Principles in Language Teaching (1986:45-47) provides expanded descriptions of
some common/typical techniques closely associated with the Audiolingual Method.
The listing here is in summary form only.

Backward Build-up (Expansion
Drill) (Teacher breaks a line into several parts,students repeat each
part starting at the end of the sentence and “expanding”
backwards through the sentence, adding each part in sequence)

Chain Drill
(Students ask and answer each other one-by-one in a circular chain
around the classroom )

Single Slot Substitution
Drill (Teacher states a line from the dialog, then uses a word or a phrase
as a “cue” that students, when repeating the line, must substitute
into the sentence in the correct place)

Multiple-slot Substitution
Drill (Same as the Single Slot drill, except that there are multiple cues
to be substituted into the line)

Transformation Drill (Teacher
provides a sentence that must be turned into something else, for example a
question to be turned into a statement, an active sentence to be turned
into a negative statement, etc)

Question-and-answer Drill
(Students should answer or ask questions very quickly)

Use of Minimal Pairs (Using
contrastive analysis, teacher selects a pair of words that sound identical
except for a single sound that typically poses difficulty for
the learners –students are to pronounce and differentiate
the two words)

Complete the Dialog (Selected
words are erased from a line in the dialog – students must
find and insert)

Grammar Games (Various games
designed to practice a grammar point in context, using lots of repetition)

Non-Suitability of ALM in Pakistani
Context

The audio-lingual method was deprived of its scientific
credibility and it was only a matter of time before the effectiveness of the
method itself was questioned. It was partly due to Chomsky’s review of
Skinner’s Behaviorism. Later the emergence of Humanistic methods and Task-based
approaches gave a tremendous set back to ALM. Today, however; despite being
discredited as an effective teaching methodology in the 1960s, audio-lingualism
continues to be used today, although it is typically not used as the foundation
of a course, but rather, has been relegated to use in individual lessons. As it
continues to be used, it also continues to gain criticism, as Jeremy Harmer
notes, “Audio-lingual methodology seems to banish all forms of language
processing that help students sort out new language information in their
own minds.” As this type of lesson is very teacher centered, it is a popular
methodology for both teachers and students, perhaps for several reasons
but in particular, because the input and output is restricted and both parties
know what to expect. Apart from the above theoretical issues, we must notice
limitations of ALM listed below. These limitations and implications are, by no
means, helpful in Pakistani context.

Basic method of teaching is
repetition, speech is standardized and pupils turn into parrots who can
reproduce many things but never create anything new or spontaneous.

Pupils became better and
better at pattern practice but were unable to use the patterns fluently in
natural speech situations.

Mechanical drills of early
Audio-Visual approach criticised as being not only boring and mindless but
also counter-productive, if used beyond initial introduction to new
structure.

Audio-Visual materials were
open to same sort of misuse. Tendency to regard audio-visual materials as
a teaching method in themselves, not as a teaching aid.

Soon became clear to teachers
that audio-visual approach could only assist in presentation of new
materials. More subtle classroom skills were needed for pupils to
assimilate material and use it creatively. This final vital phase was
often omitted by teachers.

New technology caught
publishers and text-book writers unprepared – very few commercial
materials were available in the early stages. Those that did exist
stressed oral and aural skills and didn’t develop reading and writing
skills.

New materials necessitated
extensive use of equipment with all associated problems of black-out,
extension leads, carrying tape-recorders from classroom to classroom. Some
schools set up Specialist- Language rooms, but teachers still had to set
up projectors and find places on tape. Equipment could break down,
projector lamps explode, tapes tangle – not sophisticated equipment of
today. Hardware involved extra time, worry and problems, and, for these
reasons alone, its use gradually faded away.

Series of classroom studies
threw doubt on claims made for language laboratory. Showed that this
costly equipment did not improve performance of 11+ beginners, when
compared with same materials used on single tape-recorder in classroom.

Rejection of ALM
in Pakistani Environment

ALM is not the right choice for Pakistani
teachers to employ with their students. An experienced Pakistani teacher will
readily understand its limitations. There are a number of reasons why this
method should be abolished (partially at least; if not completely).

Firstly, Pakistan
is a progressive country where academic demographics of the leaner are
strictly limited. ALM is based on highly modernized language lab which it
self catches the attention of the leaner rather than the language itself.
Moreover, it is still difficult for most learners to operate on this
sophisticated apparatus on their own.

Secondly, Pakistan
is relatively a poor country and most institutions cannot install the
modern equipment and provide individual apparatus for practice. Even if
they do, the course of learning becomes too expensive for the learner to
carry on with.

Thirdly, though ALM a natural
approach, yet we must not forget that habit formation does require a
natural environment where language is spoken round the clock; but a
learner keeps a contact with the apparatus for two hours and in the actual
context of use in society, he has no such opportunity to exploit what he
has learnt.

Fourthly, ALM is very
time-consuming. Based on natural approach, ALM roughly takes two years for
a steadier leaner which is something, not to be afforded by Pakistani
learners who want prompt results.

Fifthly, ALM cannot work best
with students who have already been instructed with GTM. Those Pakistanis
who want to learn English have already been instructed with GTM in their
Secondary Education, so it is difficult for them to adapt to the new
approach.

Conclusion

ALM is the key style in modern English Teaching.
Lessons in the classroom focus on the correct imitation of the teacher by the
students. Not only are the students expected to produce the correct output, but
attention is also paid to correct pronunciation. Although correct grammar is
expected in usage, no explicit grammatical instruction is given. Furthermore,
the target language is the only language to be used in the classroom. ALM has
its roots in Krashen’s Natural Approach and Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour. ALM
rests upon Listening and partial or controlled reading to induce input like
First Language Acquisition and later emphasis is added to production and
speaking.

In Pakistan,
ALM is not very successful due to infra-structural and applied reasons. Also
ALM in Pakistan
is not very suitable as it is expensive for the organization and time-consuming
for the learner alike. In my personal opinion, however, one of the key
responsibilities of the modern day teacher of any discipline is to actively
create and build intrinsic motivation in their learners, to empower them with
the ability and confidence to “learn how to learn”, to develop a sense of
responsibility for their own development, and to regard peers as possible
sources of learning as well. They should also be encouraged to experiment with
and formulate their own ongoing set of language rules, and to deduct through
active independent application where and how the rules need to be adapted. The
idea that errors are a natural and even necessary part of the learning process
needs to be encouraged and supported. The Audiolingual Method does nothing to
address those issues, and as a whole is little more than a very effective way
of running highly teacher-orientated classrooms designed to produce language
users whose proficiency stems from some kind of “auto pilot” mentality.
There are ways in which the practice involved in the Audiolingual Method can be
applied to approaches that have a bigger picture in mind. Audiolingual-based
drills can be adapted and used in combination with effective error correction
techniques to create an approach that is sensitive to affective factors, and
can be followed up with techniques designed to create more independent
experimentation and application. I do not in any way recommend it as a holistic
approach to language teaching, but there are certainly aspects and techniques
from the method that are effective if used properly and in combination with an
appropriate range of other activities. So we cannot entirely reject ALM, we can
use it for autonomous learning, but for the teacher, the best method should be
eclectic and vary from person to person and place to place. It should be
tailored to the needs of the students.